Ericsson launches a patent licensing platform aimed at accelerating the development of the ‘internet of things’.
14
Federal Circuit nips it in the Rosebud Adobe Systems is not liable for pre- issuance damages because it had no notice of a competitor’s patent, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The Federal Circuit ruled on 9 February that the software company is exempt from pre-issuance damages due to a lack of knowledge of Rosebud’s patent under Section 154(d) of the Patent Act. Section 154(d) of the Patent Act provides for damages for infringement that takes place before a patent issues, as long as the infringer had actual notice of the published patent application. Rosebud, which produces PDF software like Adobe’s Acrobat products, has served its competitor with three suits for alleged patent infringement. Two previous cases, beginning in 2010, have been dismissed. Continued on p2 DOJ watching SEP holders The US Department of Justice is growing concerned about standard essential patent (SEP) holders evading their licensing commitments. In a speech given on 5 February at an anti-trust event in the US, attorney general Renata Hesse said the US is concerned when SEP holders “seek to exploit their market power by evading the licensing commitments they voluntarily made”. She said that the US does not want to impose unnecessary barriers, but reward SEP owners. The attorney general said that if a patent becomes commercially important “we don’t impute fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments”. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and domain registrar Donuts have partnered up to fight piracy. The MPAA and Donuts, which operates hundreds of TLDs, will work together to ensure that websites using Donuts domains are not engaged in large-scale piracy. Under the agreement, the MPAA will be treated as a “trusted notifier” for reporting large-scale pirate websites that are registered in a domain extension operated by Donuts. Referrals must be accompanied by clear evidence of pervasive copyright infringement and a representation that the MPAA has first attempted to contact the registrar. Donuts will then work with registrar partners to contact the website owner. If Donuts discovers that the website is engaged in illegal activity, it will either hold or suspend the domain. Jon Nevett, co-founder of Donuts, called the agreement a “groundbreaking partnership”. “As the operator of .movie, .theatre, .company and almost 200 other domains, Donuts is committed to a healthy domain name environment and this is another step toward a safe and secure namespace,” added Nevett. “This agreement [with Donuts] demonstrates that the technology community and content creators can work together to help ensure legal digital marketplaces that benefit all members of the online ecosystem,” commented Chris Dodd, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America. MPAA and Donuts to take on infringing domain names together Continued on p2 The primary source of global intellectual property internet news and analysis ISSUE085 16.02.2016 www.ipprotheinternet.com
Transcript
Federal Circuit nips it in the Rosebud
Adobe Systems is not liable for pre-issuance damages because it had no notice of a competitor’s patent, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled.
The Federal Circuit ruled on 9 February that the software company is exempt from pre-issuance damages due to a lack of knowledge of Rosebud’s patent under Section 154(d) of the Patent Act.
Section 154(d) of the Patent Act provides for damages for infringement that takes place before a patent issues, as long as the infringer had actual notice of the published patent application.
Rosebud, which produces PDF software like Adobe’s Acrobat products, has served its competitor with three suits for alleged patent infringement. Two previous cases, beginning in 2010, have been dismissed.
Continued on p2
DOJ watching SEP holdersThe US Department of Justice is growing concerned about standard essential patent (SEP) holders evading their licensing commitments.
In a speech given on 5 February at an anti-trust event in the US, attorney general Renata Hesse said the US is concerned when SEP holders “seek to exploit their market power by evading the licensing commitments they voluntarily made”.
She said that the US does not want to impose unnecessary barriers, but reward SEP owners. The attorney general said that if a patent becomes commercially important “we don’t impute fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments”.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and domain registrar Donuts have partnered up to fight piracy.
The MPAA and Donuts, which operates hundreds of TLDs, will work together to ensure that websites using Donuts domains are not engaged in large-scale piracy.
Under the agreement, the MPAA will be treated as a “trusted notifier” for reporting large-scale pirate websites that are registered in a domain extension operated by Donuts.
Referrals must be accompanied by clear evidence of pervasive copyright infringement and a representation that the MPAA has first attempted to contact the registrar. Donuts will then work with registrar partners to contact the website owner.
If Donuts discovers that the website is engaged in illegal activity, it will either hold or suspend the domain.
Jon Nevett, co-founder of Donuts, called the agreement a “groundbreaking partnership”.
“As the operator of .movie, .theatre, .company and almost 200 other domains, Donuts is committed to a healthy domain name environment and this is another step toward a safe and secure namespace,” added Nevett.
“This agreement [with Donuts] demonstrates that the technology community and content creators can work together to help ensure legal digital marketplaces that benefit all members of the online ecosystem,” commented Chris Dodd, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America.
MPAA and Donuts to take on infringing domain names together
Continued on p2
The primary source of global intellectual property internet news and analysis
ISSUE08516.02.2016w w w. i p p r o t h e i n t e r n e t . c o m
Federal Circuit nips it in the RosebudContinued from p1
In February 2014, Rosebud sued Adobe at the District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of a patent covering techniques for enabling collaborative work over a network of computers.
Rosebud sought an injunction and damages, but Adobe filed a motion for summary judgement on the basis that the patent-in-suit did not issue until after its accused product was discontinued, and that it wasn’t aware of the patent application.
The district court backed Adobe and granted its motion.
Rosebud appealed against the decision on the basis of pre-issuance damages, but the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court ruling in Adobe’s favour.
DOJ watching SEP holdersContinued from p1
But once certain patents become more valuable and adopters are locked into the standard, Hesse said the competitive process suffers and “victimises those who have, in good faith, begun implementing the standard”.
Highlighting long-term consequences, Hesse said: “Companies that thought they could rely on the FRAND licensing commitments may be less willing to implement the standard, or future standards.”
She claimed that for those reasons, anti-trust enforcers and competition advocates are addressing this behaviour where appropriate.
“We also work closely with the Patent and Trademark Office, to find ways of using our enforcement or regulatory powers to further our goal of unleashing the competitive forces in the market.”
Microsoft and GoPro agree on wearable technology
Microsoft’s technology licensing arm has signed a patent licensing agreement with camera maker GoPro.
Under the new agreement, GoPro has access to certain file storage and other Microsoft system technologies.
Microsoft announced the deal with the versatile camera maker on 5 February. No other details were disclosed.
“This agreement with GoPro shows the incredible breadth of technology sharing enabled through patent transactions,” said Nick Psyhogeos, president of Microsoft Technology Licensing.
“Microsoft’s licensing of personal wearable technologies is seeing strong demand as we partner with companies from all industries to optimise solutions for their customers around the globe.”
Microsoft signed a patent licensing agreement covering wearable devices with Olio Devices at the end of January.
The company launched its patent licensing programme in 2003, and has entered into more than 1,200 deals.
Nvidia v Samsung takes another turn
Samsung failed to show that semiconductor manufacturer Nvidia infringed its patent for memory chip technology, a jury in the US has ruled.
The jury, sitting in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, also upheld Samsung’s patent on 5 February.
They ruled against Nvidia’s claim that the patent lacked a written description.
Latest NewsThe Association of American Publishers urges the US government to further engage with Canada and China over their copyright laws p4
Latest NewsEricsson launches a patent licensing platform aimed at accelerating the development of the ‘internet of things’ p4
Latest NewsOpenTV’s data communication patents in the US are invalid under the Alice Corp decision, a district court rules in the Swiss TV technology company’s spat with Apple p6
Digital CopyrightCopyright law is yet to scratch the surface of what is commercial and non-commercial, says Jay Rosenthal of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp p8
People MovesArrivals and departures at ICANN, Davies Collison Cave and more p12
The companies have been engaged in patent infringement litigation since 2014, when Nvidia claimed that Samsung infringed its graphic processing unit patents with its Galaxy line of products.
In October 2015, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in favour of Samsung that it did not violate US law by importing certain products into the US.
A separate ITC decision in December also held that Nvidia infringed three of Samsung’s patents.
The 5 February district court ruling held that Samsung did not prove that Nvidia infringed four claims of one of its patents in the dispute.
The jury also found that Nvidia failed to prove that the evidence in the claims were invalid because they lack written description.
American publishers attack Canada and China
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has urged the US government to further engage with Canada and China over their copyright laws.
The association has joined the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) in its submission to US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 inquiry, arguing that the US economy loses vital economic and export opportunities due to trade barriers overseas.
According to the submission filed on 5 February, the barriers “stand in the way of growth of a legitimate digital marketplace for the US and foreign creators alike”.
In addition, the IIPA recommended a focus on markets where engagement by the US will “reap positive results for industries that support creators”.
It asked the USTR to designate Ukraine as a ‘priority foreign country’, the most severe position on the list, as well as place six nations on the ‘priority watch list’ and nine more on the least severe ‘watch list’.
AAP endorsed the IIPA’s recommendations and said in a statement that the government should address the deficiencies in Canada and China’s copyright protection and enforcement regimes, “particularly as they affect the publishing sector”.
The AAP claimed that the educational publishing market in Canada is deteriorating due to the “overly broad” exception to copyright for educational materials under its Copyright Modernization Act.
“We are initiating this marketplace following discussions with both wireless industry players and key players in industry verticals,” he said.
“This platform shows Ericsson’s commitment to provide a solution that works to the benefit of all parts of the ecosystem.”
According to Ericsson’s latest mobility report, 15 billion devices will be connected ‘machine to machine’ by 2021.
Hans Vestberg, CEO of Ericsson added: “As more and more industries embrace connectivity and the internet of things, it is crucial that essential technology is accessible and that innovators continue to get fair returns on R&D investments.”
YouTube is not financially liable, confirms German court
YouTube cannot be held liable for the copyright infringement committed by its users, the Higher Regional Court in Munich has ruled.
The Higher Regional Court in Munich was ruling on an appeal in a long-running dispute between the video streaming service and German collecting society GEMA, which is seeking compensation for its music publisher and musician members for users’ infringement.
In July, 2015 the Munich I Regional Court rejected a request to have YouTube held financially liable for the copyright infringement of its users, meaning the video streaming platform does not have to compensate rights owners.
GEMA and its members are perturbed that YouTube users and the platform earn money from advertising but pay no royalties for any use of their music.
Tobias Holzmüller, general counsel at GEMA, said the Higher Regional Court’s decision, which was delivered on 28 January, was “most regrettable”.
“The court has obviously followed YouTube’s argumentation that it is only the uploaders who are responsible for the contents that are retrievable via the service.”
“We consider this to be wrong. Furthermore, the decision is not justified from an economic perspective, as it continues to enable YouTube to generate high advertising revenues without passing them on to musical authors.”
Holzmüller added: “We shall study the reasons for the decision and then probably launch an appeal.”
Tom Allen, president of AAP, said: “We look forward to continuing to support US government efforts to address unresolved issues in key markets, such as Canada and China.”
VirnetX secures $625.6 million judgement against Apple
VirnetX has been awarded $625.6 million in damages in its patent infringement case against Apple.
The verdict, announced on 3 February, marks the second time a jury has found Apple liable for infringing VirnetX’s patents.
The damages award includes royalties and a redo of a 2012 jury’s damages award of $368 million, after finding that Apple’s VPN On Demand service and its FaceTime website infringed four of VirnetX’s patents.
That award was vacated by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and sent back to district court under a new claim construction, which the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas jury has now decided.
Included in the royalties that Apple now owes VirnetX was an award based on the jury’s finding that Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime services have “continued” to infringe VirnetX’s patents.
Caldwell Cassidy, attorney for VirnetX, said: “The jury saw what we have been saying all along: Apple has been infringing VirnetX’s patented technology for years.”
“We are extremely pleased with the jury verdict,” said Kendall Larsen, VirnetX CEO and president.
Ericsson launches IoT licensing platform
Ericsson has launched a patent licensing platform aimed at accelerating the development of the ‘internet of things’.
The platform will adopt a revenue sharing model for contributing companies and receive a mandate to licence on behalf of the joining patent holders, aiming to simplify access to standardised technology.
Ericsson’s platform is intended to be an efficient marketplace for vertical businesses technology licensing needs, with flat per-unit licensing fees for verticals that reflect how much of the connectivity that device uses.
Ericsson will make its patents for relevant technologies available through the platform.
Kasim Alfalahi will leave his current role as chief intellectual officer at Ericsson to lead the new platform.
The US Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit’s decision in the Google Books case threatens the balance of the Copyright Act, according to the American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA).
The ASJA submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on 1 February in support of the Authors Guild’s battle to protect its authors from Google’s mass digitisation of thousands of university collections.
A lengthy legal battle resulted in the Second Circuit ruling in October 2015 that Google Books, as it became known, ‘transformed’ the works when scanning them and making snippets available for searching.
This made the project a non-infringing and highly beneficial fair use under copyright law, according to the Second Circuit.
ASJA argued in its petition that the Second Circuit “erred” by interpreting ‘transformation’ “in a manner completely detached from justification or fairness”.
Citing the Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music 1994 case, the petition said the court defined transformation as whether the “otherwise infringing” work adds “something new, altering the first with new expression of meaning.”
“Here, Google has not altered the works at all. Their meanings and messages are the same.”
The Authors Guild urged the Supreme Court to weigh in on the decision in January. “The [Second Circuit] decision fundamentally remakes the fair-use doctrine by eliminating any focus on whether the use involves the creation of new expression, meaning, or message,” according to its petition.
A decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case is expected in the spring.
Kobe Bryant tattoos spark infringement one-on-one
Tattoo company Solid Oak Sketches has filed a copyright infringement complaint against a videogame publisher for using basketball superstar Kobe Bryant’s tattoo designs in its games.
Take-Two Interactive Software, which also owns Rockstar Games, the maker of the Grand Theft Auto series, allegedly infringed Solid Oak’s copyright by using eight tattoo designs in its official NBA games.
These included a child portrait on Bryant’s right arm and a crown with butterflies, according to the 02 February complaint.
Bryant’s tattoos feature prominently on covers and adverts for Take-Two Interactive Software’s official NBA games.
Solid Oak acquired the copyright for Bryant’s tattoos in June 2015 from the artist who created the designs, according to the complaint.
Solid Oak offered Take-Two Interactive Software a licensing agreement to use eight of the tattoos in 2014 and 2015, for $819,000, or a license beginning in 2016 for $1.4 million.
But the offer was apparently rejected.
The complaint filed at US District Court for the Southern District of New York, sought damages of $150,000 per infringement and a jury trial.
Solid Oak also owns the copyright for LeBron James’s tattoos.
Take-Two Interactive Software has not repsonded publically to the complaint.
OpenTV patents ‘abstract’ under Alice Corp decision
OpenTV’s data communication patents in the US are invalid under the Alice Corp decision, a district court has ruled in the Swiss TV technology company’s spat with Apple.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California held on 28 January that the patents were abstract under the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp v CLS Bank ruling and lacked an inventive concept.
The subsidiary of Kudelski Group, OpenTV, filed the lawsuit against Apple in May 2015, arguing that the iOS and OS X operating systems infringed patents for securely communicating data between devices.
Apple sought to prove that the claims of the patents were abstract and filed a motion to dismiss the case.
OpenTV argued that the patents constitute “significantly more” than an abstract idea because they satisfy the two-part framework affirmed in the Alice decision.
That decision also held that requiring computer implementation fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The affirmed two-part framework states that patent examiners must analyse all claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas for subject matter eligibility, despite the existence of any judicial exceptions.
Judge Edward Davila of the US District Court for the Northern District of California held that OpenTV’s patents were abstract and lacked an inventive concept. “The claims are directed to the abstract idea of controlling the rights of software applications to access other software applications and fail to contain an inventive concept,” ruled Judge Davila.
• Trademarks Patents Designs• Copyright Anti-counterfeiting• Border Enforcement Measures Domains• Data Protection IP Litigation
STILLWATERS is an award winning law firm in Nigeria that specializes in intellectual property law,corporate and commercial, taxation and litigation. The firm operates from the commercial cities ofLagos and Abuja in Nigeria, with associate offices in Accra in Ghana and Douala in Cameroon.
Professionalism, flexibility and innovation are the hallmark of our practice. We value professionalexcellence, outstanding result and realize they both require creativity and hard work. We strive to gainevery legal advantage for our clients while upholding the principles behind the practice of law. Overthe years, we have acquired considerable experience and an enviable reputation for rendering qualitylegal services in our areas of specialization.
Practice representative clients include over 660 foreign multinationals, publicly-quoted companies,private companies, financial institutions, government institutions, industrial medium size businessesand individuals. Our practice is adequately equipped and well positioned to meet the challenges oflegal practice in an ever-changing technological age.
• IP Due Diligence Annuities• Transfer of Technology Piracy• Licensing Distributorship Franchising• Customs Related Assistance• Registrations Renewals Assignments
STILLWATERS FULL PAGE AD purple .indd 1 03/03/2015 14:45
Do you think, in light of the criticism levelled at Google Books in its dispute with the Authors Guild, that mass digitisation is a path that must be tread carefully?
It’s a path to tread very carefully. The case impacts on copyright owned by major companies, as well as small artists and independent companies representing those artists. It’s a case that is very troubling to the content and artist community and, therefore, we should definitely tread carefully into mass digitisation.
How likely is it that mass digitisation will happen—are we already there, with the Google Books litigation and the drive towards digitising everything?
I think we are headed in that direction. When you open the door, it’s hard to close. The big copyright question for mass digitisation is what kind of protections and comfort can the companies engaged in these projects give to the content and artistic communities so they are comfortable that their property is not being infringed or their business model damaged.
Whether or not the use can be characterised as commercial or non-commercial is also very challenging. It is a grey area at this point.
In the past, it was fairly easy to conclude that a library project was non-commercial and beneficial to our culture, and in some instances a clear example of ‘fair use’. That is not the case today. Mass digitisation projects contemplated today can certainly be commercial in nature. This changes the whole tenor of these initiatives. This is where a lot of the concern lies. Libraries never sold music—now they can sell or rent music tracks. It’s a new world.
We have yet to scratch the surface of what is commercial or non-commercial. This is a red flag for the content community moving forward. And the content community is trying to express that to Congress, to companies and organisations engaged in mass digitisation. I think we’re just starting the process of figuring out what to do and what protections to have. But mass digitisation is moving forward. It is simply a by-product of our new digital world.
You have to embrace it, but the goal is to make sure it’s a win-win for all involved. We cannot create a system whereby content creators are collateral damage. We did this with piracy and it was a disaster for content creators. It is time to figure out how all the parties can emerge as winners because, if artists lose the incentive to make money, it will end the creation of art.
You say that in an ideal situation, ‘everybody’ wins, but it seems right now that Google is the only winner. Is this fair?
I do not deny that Google and other digital service companies are ahead, but it is more of a race, than a one-day event. Google and other companies engaging in mass digitisation are far ahead, but it does not mean that content creators cannot catch up.
In historical context, this is how copyright has always worked. New disruptive technologies are developed, and copyright owners have always had to fight for their rights after the fact—in other words, they chase after the new technologies by filing lawsuits and seeking changes in copyright law. But once the content community begins to take action, whether it’s through copyright reform or in the courts, the playing field becomes more balanced—at least hopefully.
It’s one of the reasons why I think there has been such an increase in compulsory licensing since the beginning of the 20th century. This
Copyright law is yet to scratch the sur face of what is commercial and non-commercial, says Jay Rosenthal of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
Digital Copyright
Jay Rosenthal, Partner, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
Fair use needs to be narrow and limited.We should be focusing on how to pay artists
9
has always been a fall-back position of government and when a market fails, and compulsory or collective licensing seems to be the more efficient answer, the government—for good or bad—steps in. This is not the perfect solution, but this is better than piracy because at least the copyright owner is paid.
The question, however, is how much do companies pay, and is it a fair price for the content. Compulsory licensing, frustratingly, devalues the intellectual property, but it’s good that they pay for it once they take a compulsory licence.
Is that a likely outcome of mass digitisation?
Perhaps. The frightening potential is that mass digitisation could become a way to expand fair use. That’s what the Google Books case is about, as well as other entities doing the same thing. We need to stay away from an expansion of fair use.
Fair use needs to be narrow and limited. We should be focusing on how to pay artists—not on how not to pay them.
Do you think fair use will be narrowed?
No. On one level, if fair use is not expanded, the content owners have ‘won’. But much in Congress is not a matter of winning, but a matter of keeping the status quo. I am not optimistic that fair use is going to be limited.
If Google, libraries and universities are considered to be practising fair use, how are rights owners affected?
If fair use is expanded into what would be considered ‘commercial’ activity, rights owners will be deprived of royalties that they would rightly receive from a clean commercial endeavor. The worst thing is that rights owners would lose an otherwise commercial market and would stop making art because they are not being compensated properly. I think this is something lost on everybody. We cannot incentivise the creation of amateur art—we must incentivise the creation of professional art.
Quality art is lost unless companies protect their copyright. Without paying the artists, you do not get quality art. The Founding Fathers did not want copyright to help create Justin Bieber—they wanted copyright to help create the next American Mozart.
Did Google ignore the public cries for quality art, then, for commercial gain?
Google’s goal is to share everything and to make as much money doing it as possible. Helping artists to create quality art is a secondary matter to them.
I don’t begrudge them for that, but I do begrudge them that they are ignoring, the constitutional imperative to protect artist’s rights.
Both individuals and institutions are fighting for an ecosystem that supports these artists, and allows them to get the money they deserve in
a way that keeps them moving forward. Maybe there needs to be more conflict between the two sides before we come to any realisation that if you don’t have art, then you won’t have Google, except if you think that Google and companies that create these technologies, do not care about the creation of new art: perhaps they think we have enough music out there, or movies, or users can just create it, and that’s all that matters. Then we really have a problem with professional art, and the quality of the art that is coming out of the artistic community.
On the flipside, is the June 2014 Aereo decision the antithesis of the Google Books case? Does it offer rights holders any hope?
The Aereo case hit upon one great headline: you’re not supposed to use technological gimmicks to get around paying royalties. That’s not what the copyright law is, it is not a game.
Aereo’s technology of thousands of tiny antennae was a gimmick to avoid paying a public performance. It’s ingenious. But the case might represent the crest of the wave for minimalist copyright.
Maybe it is rolling back and Aereo is a good example of that. We can only take so much of this juvenile approach to art, and those involved in making the TV programmes.
I agree that, if you’re looking at the Google Book case as ‘bad’ for copyright, the Aereo case is ‘good’ for copyright.
There are more Aereo-style companies out there. The sector may also see major copyright lawsuits against the larger companies too, such as Grooveshark and MegaUpload.
Grokster has gone, and everybody has recognised that the copyright community on the piracy side has handled the technological companies involved in piracy and those companies are coming to a realisation that now, they cannot steal copyrighted property.
The question now is how much are they paying. Companies such as, Spotify and Google have agreed to license—whether or not these small licensing fees adequately substitute for the loss from piracy is the great question. And this is where a lot of the fight is going to be.
So there still is hope that even in the face of mass digitisation by companies like Google, the rights holders will be properly compensated. IPPro
We expect more than 9,500 brand management, trademark and other IP professionals from all over the world to register for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting! Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of the world’s biggest brand owners meeting and take advantage of hundreds of educational sessions, business strategy meetings and networking opportunities.
Meeting highlights include:
• More than 300 educational offerings including 55 general educational sessions, more than 225 table topics, users’ group meetings with leaders from several national and regional trademark offices, a 2-day Course on International Trademark Law and Practice, Mediation Training, a new Academic Series, Career Development Day, the Trademark Administrators Brunch and more.
• Opportunities to collect CLE credits from 50 U.S. states and CPD points from several international law societies.
• Special offerings for IP professionals at corporations of all sizes, including the In-House Practitioners Workshop and Luncheon, the In-House Practitioners reception and 10 Industry Exchanges.
• Hassle-free ways to conduct business in the Orange County Convention Center by booking one of 3 different types of meeting spaces.
• More than 30 official networking events, including a new exclusive INTA Concert at the House of Blues, the Sunday evening Opening Ceremony and Welcome Reception, 17 paid networking excursions, Speed Networking, Annual Meeting Registrant First Time Orientation and Reception, and the Grand Finale.
• Exhibition hall with more than 100 exhibitors and numerous sponsorship opportunities.
• Over 100 committee, project team and Global Advisory Council meetings for the new committee term (2016–2017).
• Numerous meeting conveniences just for you including complimentary shuttle services at INTA hotels and the Orange County Convention Center!
Location: GermanyDate: 07 - 09 March 2016www.globalipexchange.com
The 7th Global IP Exchange will bring together 120 senior IP decision makers who are all looking to discover new ideas and make new connections. This popular invitation only meeting is open to chief IP officers, directors of IP, heads of patent, trademark, brand protection and anti-counterfeiting plus a selected group of innovative solution providers.
Global IP ConfEx
Location: LondonDate: 16 March 2016www.london2016.events4sure.com The Global IP ConfEx, from the Global Outsourcing Association of Lawyers, will act as the ideal platform to promote the welfare, interests, education and professional development of all who are directly or indirectly associated with the legal and IP industry.
For more events visit www.ipprotheinternet.com/events/events.php
Göran Marby has been named the new president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
Marby will be based in Los Angeles, moving to one of ICANN’s three global hubs, in May.
He has more than 20 years of experience in the internet and technology sector and currently serves as the director general of the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority.
He succeeds current president and CEO Fadi Chehadé, whose term finishes on 15 March.
Akram Atallah, president of ICANN’s globlal domains division, will serve as acting CEO during the interim.
Marby said: “I am very excited to be joining ICANN and joining at the start of a new era for the organisation and the community.”
ICANN has also cancelled its fifty-sixth meeting in Panama, due to the Zika virus crisis in Latin America.
ICANN56, due to be held in June, will be moved to another as-yet unconfirmed location, the corporation confirmed in a statement.
Gordon Hughes has joined Davies Collison Cave as partner in its litigation and commercialisation practice in Melbourne.
Hughes is an expert in the areas of technology, IP commercialisation and e-commerce.
As a former partner of Ashurst Australia, he has extensive experience in the IP field. He has also served as president of the law institute of Victoria and the Law Council of Australia.
Chris Jordan, lead partner at Davies Collison Cave, said: “This appointment has been made in order to meet our clients’ meets.”
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie has added John Carson to its Los Angeles office as of counsel.
As a former trademark consultant to the Idaho secretaries of state, Carson is called upon as an arbitrator and mediator.
He has more than 40 years of experience in IP law and is well-versed in computer hardware, software and electromechanical systems.
Carson has managed a variety of IP and counterfeiting operations in the US and internationally, representing brand names in trademark infringement matters.
Art Hasan, leader of the IP group at Lewis Roca, said: “Carson’s trademark and licensing work across a wide variety of industries brings valuable experience to Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie.”
Industry appointmentsArrivals and departures at ICANN, Davies Collison Cave and more
Associate Helen Schweitz has joined Quarles & Brady’s IP practice group in Chicago.
She joins from insurance company Allstate where she served as an associate attorney and drafted and reviewed technology contracts.
Schweitz has also counselled clients on corporate strategy, technology and product operations.
Lynn Pinker & Cox has become Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, with the addition of Michael Hurst as partner in its Dallas office.
Hurst is an established IP and litigation lawyer. He arrives at the firm from Gruber Hurst Elrod Johansen Hail Shank and has litigated high-profile lawsuits.
Hurst’s colleagues Shonn Brown and Jonathan Childers also join the firm as partners, while John Guild has become senior counsel and Joshua Sandler, Michael Kalis and Christina Mullen join as associates.
Lynn Pinker, partner in charge, said: “By adding Kalis, Brown, Childers and their team to the already considerable talent here, we truly have the finest and most experienced stable of young trial talent in the city and perhaps even the state.”
“We are pleased to join forces with Lynn, Pinker and Cox,” said Hurst. “This combination is going to be unstoppable. I look forward to reaching even greater heights together in the next 20 years and beyond.”
Zeisler has bagged trademark attorney Mark Mutterperl as partner, to lead its IP and brand protection practice.
He previously served as partner at Norton Rose Fulbright for 23 years.
Mutterperl focuses his practice on trademarks, false advertising, copyright and right of publicity.
He has litigated for Apple, Starbucks, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer and has implemented anti-counterfeiting programmes and managed trademark portfolios.
Aaron Zeisler, founder of Zeisler, said: “We are thrilled to add Mutterperl to our team. IP is one of our core practices and Mutterperl’s experience immediately expands our ability to provide outstanding client service.”
Mark Howland and Samuel Joyner have joined Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal in Dallas as partners.
Howland arrives from Jones Day, where he spent 15 years representing clients in patent and trade secret litigation in federal courts in the US.
He has a particular focus on semiconductor manufacturing, wireless communications and software.
Joyner previously served as partner at Ross Joyner, where he worked on patent infringement, copyright and trademark enforcement, and unfair competition.
Bruce Collins, partner at Carrington, said: “The addition of Howland and Joyner will allow us to offer that same level of expertise to technology companies facing complex, high-stakes patent litigation.” IPPro
